Players continuing to play while bleeding, unless the umpire intervenes

[MC Extra Dollop]

Interested to get people's opinions on what their reaction would be if a player from their team took himself from the field, or even 'dobbed' himself in to an umpire (if he was nowhere near the interchange gates), if he had a superficial, but obvious, cut, rather than the standard/macho playing through it and trying to hide it from the umpires. Is this possibly the next step in on-field player welfare, in the vein of the clubs taking concussions seriously and not just giving a player the smelling salts and sending him back out there?

Either the rule is needed, or it isn't and I'm quite sure that unless something changes, the players themselves will continue to treat the rule with the same outward contempt that they always have. If a player ever did it in the dying stages of a close game, he'd be ripped to shreds for being so 'soft'. Should the AFL intervene with 'Please explains' and fines being handed out to players who couldn't possibly be unaware that they have blood pouring from their face, as players get (or are supposed to, anyway) for staging? And if a player alerts the umpire that he's bleeding and leaves the field, I think the team shouldn't be charged with an interchange.

I'm a hypocrite, incidentally: I'd like to see it become the norm, but I wouldn't want Joel Selwood, Harry Taylor or Tom Hawkins to be the Neil Armstrong of self-reporting blood in a game where Geelong was down by less than a kick in time on of the fourth quarter. It just seems like a strange anomaly in all sports, when concussions are being treated more and more seriously, even when it is to the obvious detriment of the team.

 

[Messenger]

Concussion is risk to the affected player and could be significant on each occasion. The player involved sometimes cannot make an informed judgement that he is affected, so the decision has to be made for him.

Blood is about risk to the other players and the risk of player to player infection is quite remote, requiring as it does both blood to enter another open wound and the bleeding player to have a blood borne communicable disease.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Concussion is risk to the affected player and could be significant on each occasion. The player involved sometimes cannot make an informed judgement that he is affected, so the decision has to be made for him.

Blood is about risk to the other players and the risk of player to player infection is quite remote, requiring as it does both blood to enter another open wound and the bleeding player to have a blood borne communicable disease.

Fair points, but like I said, either the rule is necessary, or it's not and since it directly affects player welfare (and possibly more so, since it affects other players' welfare), the players should probably treat it seriously.

 

[jiphoc]

In my opinion if a player has a cut and is obviously aware of it. He should immediately seek an interchange (not counted towards the cap). If a player is found to be aware and ignoring his bleeding a penalty in a similar vein to the staging penalties should apply. In this day and age pretending to be macho when medicine has proven how dangerous open cuts can be is silly.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

The funny thing is, calling attention to yourself to the umpire could actually be used as a tactical ploy, if your team is trying to hang on to a lead and the opposition is coming home with a flurry, as the umpire is obliged to stop the play. But players still wouldn't do the right thing, even if it's also the smart move that you could partly exploit from a gamesmanship perspective, because it's seen as a soft option.

 

[jiphoc]

The funny thing is, calling attention to yourself to the umpire could actually be used as a tactical ploy, if your team is trying to hang on to a lead and the opposition is coming home with a flurry, as the umpire is obliged to stop the play. But players still wouldn't do the right thing, even if it's also the smart move that you could partly exploit from a gamesmanship perspective, because it's seen as a soft option.

Yes it could be. However giving yourself a concussion or cutting yourself until you bleed will not be popular options.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Concussion is risk to the affected player and could be significant on each occasion. The player involved sometimes cannot make an informed judgement that he is affected, so the decision has to be made for him.

Blood is about risk to the other players and the risk of player to player infection is quite remote, requiring as it does both blood to enter another open wound and the bleeding player to have a blood borne communicable disease.

It is quite remote yes, as far as I know there have been no instances of disease passed on in sport (professional at the very least)

HOWEVER

The consequences are huge. It's one of those things that on a risk management/OHS list would still be rated very high, even though the likelihood is low.

I personally hate players not going off for it.
I also remember when Buckley wiped his blood on Ling he was crucified for it. Is intentionally wiping it on someone worse than playing on knowing you can get blood on others? Imo, there isn't much difference at all considering congestion of footy etc. If you play on with blood (not talking about a cut on the knee you could feasibly be unaware of) you are doing pretty much the exact same thing.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Yes it could be. However giving yourself a concussion or cutting yourself until you bleed will not be popular options.

WWF-style...? Hahaha. And the thing is, they'd be pilloried for it, even though it's the right thing, unless it becomes a pretty normal occurrence, at any stage of a game. A player would probably be excused of 'cheating' if he did it in a game in the dying stages of a close game in Round 1, funnily enough.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I personally hate players not going off for it.
I also remember when Buckley wiped his blood on Ling he was crucified for it. Is intentionally wiping it on someone worse than playing on knowing you can get blood on others? Imo, there isn't much difference at all considering congestion of footy etc. If you play on with blood (not talking about a cut on the knee you could feasibly be unaware of) you are doing pretty much the exact same thing.

Yep, essentially what I was getting at in raising the question. Buckley was actually suspended for it and his act was a bit worse for obvious reasons, but...yeah, it's the same ballpark, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[telsor]

I'm sure the chances of a player reporting themselves (or more likely a teammate/opponent doing so..players might be late to notice themselves) is directly proportional to the situation of the game.

That this is so suggests strongly that the players don't care too much about the risks.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I'm sure the chances of a player reporting themselves (or more likely a teammate/opponent doing so..players might be late to notice themselves) is directly proportional to the situation of the game.

That this is so suggests strongly that the players don't care too much about the risks.

Absolutely, as would be the fallout from it. A player would probably get a fair few raps from the media (and perhaps even his supporters) for doing it, when his team's up by ten goals. But, even then, it's not the done thing, though in fairness, players would simply get rotated at times when they're bleeding, without us knowing.

 

[Messenger]

It is quite remote yes, as far as I know there have been no instances of disease passed on in sport (professional at the very least)

HOWEVER

The consequences are huge. It's one of those things that on a risk management/OHS list would still be rated very high, even though the likelihood is low.

I personally hate players not going off for it.
I also remember when Buckley wiped his blood on Ling he was crucified for it. Is intentionally wiping it on someone worse than playing on knowing you can get blood on others? Imo, there isn't much difference at all considering congestion of footy etc. If you play on with blood (not talking about a cut on the knee you could feasibly be unaware of) you are doing pretty much the exact same thing.

There is one suspected case from a clash of heads. Mentioned here

I'm familiar with risk matrices and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't go off. I am suggesting, however, that worry about them not volunteering to go off or waiting until they are either sited or do bed in by an opponent is a confected fear. You can't fix it without yet another subjective rule.

 

[Damon_3388]

Even if the likelyhood of communicable disease is remote, staph infections from dirty cuts and scrapes are a very real thing in sports, and being in an environment where perspiration (both your own and that of others) and actual dirt are present isn't the best for keeping a fresh wound healthy. I don't see why you'd willingly leave a bleeding wound untreated TBH.

 

[Quinz]

Yes it could be. However giving yourself a concussion or cutting yourself until you bleed will not be popular options.

Fake blood capsules.

Harlequins did it in a rugby game a few years back.

 

[D-N-R]

Firstly, you'd have to prove the player knew he was cut if you were going to penalise him for not leaving the field. If a player did something truly untoward, there is scope in the Tribunal and BTGID charges to cover any extraordinary circumstances like deliberately injuring yourself or putting cut players on the field to deliberately stop play.

 

[master bate]

Wow, it must still be the offseason.

The blood rule is still necessary, 1 for health reasons (even though it's remotely s and 2 for public image of the game reasons.

But playing on is such a small negligence to yourself and fellow player that it doesn't need to be legislated against. There's also the opposition, 3 umpires and goal and boundary umpires should also be able to talk to the field umpires about blood rules.

What I don't get is that opposition players don't dob each other in more. Especially when it's a star player or when it's a good time to create an extra 30 second stoppage. Besides centre bounces the ball will almost always be in one teams half, so really there's plenty of chances to either report yourself or dob someone in and get a tactical break. But I certainly don't think players should be mandated to take themselves off.

I'm not sure this the best analogy but: Speeding 5km over the limit is still dangerous. So it's illegal. But you'd be crazy to ask people to self report for minor breaches of the speed limit.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Wow, it must still be the offseason.

The blood rule is still necessary, 1 for health reasons (even though it's remotely s and 2 for public image of the game reasons.

I'd say that it's ingrained from juniors, that you don't take yourself off for a cut. I know I've never done it in a game in any sport, unless I couldn't run.

But playing on is such a small negligence to yourself and fellow player that it doesn't need to be legislated against. There's also the opposition, 3 umpires and goal and boundary umpires should also be able to talk to the field umpires about blood rules.

I just think it's a ridiculously over-the-top Rambo attitude that's totally out of line with the way so many other things are going in sports. And the funny thing is, I've rarely (maybe never) seen it questioned by anyone in the media. And as soon as people start to do that, it will be fixed rapidly.

What I don't get is that opposition players don't dob each other in more. Especially when it's a star player or when it's a good time to create an extra 30 second stoppage. Besides centre bounces the ball will almost always be in one teams half, so really there's plenty of chances to either report yourself or dob someone in and get a tactical break. But I certainly don't think players should be mandated to take themselves off.

I see it happening a bit. Geelong players dobbed Sam Mitchell in to the umpires in the final minute of the famous Hawkins after the siren goal match in 2012. Unless it's a stoppage, it's your direct opponent, or blood is absolute streaming from a wound to their head/face, I honestly don't think I'd notice.

I'm not sure this the best analogy but: Speeding 5km over the limit is still dangerous. So it's illegal. But you'd be crazy to ask people to self report for minor breaches of the speed limit.

I'd agree with the bolded. It would be the equivalent of seeing that you're over the speed limit and applying the brake. It's about fixing the danger, not a penalty.

 

[master bate]

I'd say that it's ingrained from juniors, that you don't take yourself off for a cut. I know I've never done it in a game in any sport, unless I couldn't run.

I just think it's a ridiculously over-the-top Rambo attitude that's totally out of line with the way so many other things are going in sports. And the funny thing is, I've rarely (maybe never) seen it questioned by anyone in the media. And as soon as people start to do that, it will be fixed rapidly.

I see it happening a bit. Geelong players dobbed Sam Mitchell in to the umpires in the final minute of the famous Hawkins after the siren goal match in 2012. Unless it's a stoppage, it's your direct opponent, or blood is absolute streaming from a wound to their head/face, I honestly don't think I'd notice.

I'd agree with the bolded. It would be the equivalent of seeing that you're over the speed limit and applying the brake. It's about fixing the danger, not a penalty.

I just think you are way overstating the risk of any issues from blood-borne diseases in the AFL. It really would take 2 bleeding players involved in a freak contest to spread anything and of course that would require a player to have a disease that could be spread in the first place.

The blood rule was rightly brought in during the HIV scare and we should still keep it because it's better safe than sorry. But we don't have to be so safe as to punish players who don't go off straight away. That doesn't make the current rule useless.

 

[Sherrinator]

Could we end up seeing players commit self harm to prevent a play in red time?

 

[Nutsngum]

I really doubt most players would be aware of bleeds anyway. Youre already covered/dripping in sweat and unless you brush it and then look you probably wont even realize unless its pouring out

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I just think you are way overstating the risk of any issues from blood-borne diseases in the AFL. It really would take 2 bleeding players involved in a freak contest to spread anything and of course that would require a player to have a disease that could be spread in the first place.

The blood rule was rightly brought in during the HIV scare and we should still keep it because it's better safe than sorry. But we don't have to be so safe as to punish players who don't go off straight away. That doesn't make the current rule useless.

The rule's there. Players deliberately try to circumvent it, even though it's directly there to help ensure their safety (and it's more than HIV, as others have mentioned). Players have proven incapable, or unwilling of policing it themselves. The AFL has (probably after shitting its collective pants over what's been happening in the NFL) gotten its act together about treating concussions seriously. If those concussion rules weren't in place, I've got no doubt players would still be running out games, then not remembering a thing about them the next morning, like they did in the good old days.

You talk about the risk. Well, what's the risk to the team of treating the cut with the appropriate medical attention (which might take a minute and a half) as soon as possible, while having a replacement player on the ground for that entire time? Virtually nil.

It's not about a penalty. If the AFL did bring something in, I'm sure it would rarely be imposed on a player. But what it would do is to get people talking about the whole culture behind it and then you'd get a couple of more progressive coaches coming out and publicly saying that they and their clubs support the move, that they want to set an example in that area and that they may even internally penalise a player for not taking himself off the ground when he is obviously bleeding.

One issue I do see is that as the interchange cap becomes more restrictive, teams would be less inclined to take a player off, unless the umpire sees the blood. For that reason, I think when a bleeding player removes himself from the ground, he should show the interchange steward and/or bench umpire his cut and that interchange (or the subsequent one to get him back on the ground) should not be counted to the team's total.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I really doubt most players would be aware of bleeds anyway. Youre already covered/dripping in sweat and unless you brush it and then look you probably wont even realize unless its pouring out

Sometimes. But if it's your face, you become aware of it pretty quickly. If it's anywhere else (say your knee, wrist, knuckle, finger), in my experience you feel a sharp pain, then look down and say to yourself '****, I'm bleeding...'

Yes, it is possible. But I think it would be pretty rare for a player to still not realise that he's bleeding after about a minute or so. Rather than mask it, the sweat accentuates it. What's that saying about salt and wounds...?

 

[DerpWerls]

It's only blood anyway.

If any players had Hepatitis or HIV I'm sure they would definitely come straight off the ground if they knew they were bleeding.

 

[beert]

The funny thing is, calling attention to yourself to the umpire could actually be used as a tactical ploy, if your team is trying to hang on to a lead and the opposition is coming home with a flurry, as the umpire is obliged to stop the play. But players still wouldn't do the right thing, even if it's also the smart move that you could partly exploit from a gamesmanship perspective, because it's seen as a soft option.

Saw a similar situation at Sydney vs Carlton at Etihad a few years back. Sydney had the ball locked in their forward line and Craig Bird was bleeding from the head. You could see he was keeping his head down and face turned away from the umpire. As soon as there was a turnover and Carlton had the ball in their back pocket - "Umpire! Umpire! I'm bleeding!".

The whole situation only lasted a minute or so, but I remember thinking it was deliberate gaming of the blood rule.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Saw a similar situation at Sydney vs Carlton at Etihad a few years back. Sydney had the ball locked in their forward line and Craig Bird was bleeding from the head. You could see he was keeping his head down and face turned away from the umpire. As soon as there was a turnover and Carlton had the ball in their back pocket - "Umpire! Umpire! I'm bleeding!".

The whole situation only lasted a minute or so, but I remember thinking it was deliberate gaming of the blood rule.

Hmmm...that's an interesting one and again, probably an example of a situation where a 'please explain' to the player might be warranted. But I think the issue now is that players would almost never do it, so if a situation like the one you described did happen, the umpire would possibly be caught off guard a bit and be thinking 'WTF?'